Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[Tommy]

TUCKER, I see where you are going with this. This does look like a similar blue paint. As we know #1027 and its lot of parts did cross paths with the owner of the convertible at one time. I had always assumed we were looking at the drivers side of the mystery Tucker frame in the photo. I guessed that by what looks like bolt holes for the front crossrail on the left. I could be wrong. Do you have any pics of the drivers side of #1027 after it was rolled? Did it have similar damage?

[TUCKER]

yes Tommy, it is the same side of the car. See photo where I marked the parts to compair the sections with Tucker 1003 and so you can find them.

[Tommy]

The part you marked a "A" on the mystery Tucker photo looks blacked out on my monitor. I can not distinquish the back frame rails. It must show up brighter on your screen. I will concede I must have been wrong about which side of the frame I thought I was seeing. I think you may be on to something here. I hope one of the Tucker authorities can shed some light on the possibility that this the frame from #1027.

[john]

An officer was not present when the car was inspected for purchase and a deposit was left.

An officer was contacted to do a legal Police Officer inspection of the serial numbers at a later date, title and insurance reasons.
Why we sighed & was reluctant at posting only a PART of the story.

This is for titling purposes, this is the only way a Title Company will issue a new title, there are other necasary ingredients too.

There is another way, if a Title had been previously issued, a person needs to find the original person that had it titled, have a duplicate lost title application filled out and notorized, a legit P.O. inspection and vuoola, the "original issuing state" will issue title again.

It is not our word that needs to be taken about the Mystery Tucker picture Tommy, again, you must go by the previous owner and new owners publized story...
THIS chassis and cowl in the Mystery Tucker picture IS the "basis" of the whole story Tommy, that together with the Big back window car, one in the same?????

Another senerio, if the owner can not be found, a notorized affidavite of facts is ususally accepted together with a bond, after a NCIC check is done and a P.O. inspection.

Watch out though, your new title and all else mean nothing if other circumstances pop up at a later date!!!!
In 99% of such heard court cases>>>>You thusly loose the car then !!!!!

Tucker, you are right in our opinion, an authority (ies) from the Club should answer you very legitamate questions, seems they are following the story.
Preston, yes, a great story and a thread worth following.

JOHN

[Tommy]

In my state a bonded title must go one year without contest and then it becomes a real title (uncontestable). You only need a bonded title if the vehicle has been previously titled. Anyone can do a sheriffs sale if the previous title holder is by persons unknown. You can then get a bonded title in your name and the previous title holder would be notified. This is a bit more paperwork and title companies don’t like to do it, neither does the DMV but it is legal and legit. This does not apply to new home built vehicles that have never been titled or a partially built factory car that has never been titled or registered.

So the question is this. Did body #57 ever receive a title and registration? Surely it did not.

Did #1027 ever receive a title and registration? That’s a good question. It was owned by the Tucker Company and sold as a wreck. Why would anyone ever have titled it? It has never been rebuilt since the rollover. Maybe the owners of #1027 (which does not have its original frame) can answer that.

Benchmark does not show a stamp on the frame if I recall. If it is #57 or no marking at all there is nothing to worry about. If it shows #1027 marked on the frame it depends on the answer to the above question. Even if it does show #1027 and they have all their bills of sale back to the original title owner they should be ok.

John, you saw it, didn’t you say it had #57 on the frame? I’m not asking you to verify if it was the same as Body #57 seen in the factory, just asking what you saw.

If they title it as a brand new, never titled, never registered 1948 Tucker none of this matters much anyway. They will not need a bonded title and the onus would be on someone else to prove it was something other than that. I think the 99% of people who loose their cars are trying to title a previously titled vehicle that actually gets contested. If you contest a title you probably have a good reason to, like it was a stolen car and someone sold it without title. I don’t think there are any reports of stolen Tuckers anyway. The closest thing to that would be the Memphis Tucker. That was abandoned before it disappeared anyway. Most bonded titles go through no problem because they are really just lost titles and nothing more.

This is all very interesting, is it not?

[TUCKER]

Trust me, I don't even sleep when I study things. I have studied this convertible for some months or a year since I recived my first photos before photos were posted on this site and I can tell you it must be the same 1027 frame. Back section of car is from 1055 positive. Now the front fenders are also something I will find out where they came from, I am very close to finding out!

[TUCKER]

Ok here is is ready for the world!
the front fenders and hood are also from 1027! there you can compair 1027 with the convertible. The repains were done on the same place the dents were! Look closely and you will see!

Now where is the coul for 1027?? Do anyone know?

[john]

Tucker,
Congrats to you buddy, your good !!!!!!!

We are smiling, as we knew the Blue Easter egg would be a logical and reasonable area for you to investigate, not argue senselessly about.

If the Tucker authorities dig back to what was written about what serial number cars
(posted herein the site) were at Erza's, this would help !!!!

Larry Clark, yes it is cool to follow.
Tommy, you might check with an attorney and the courts, their is no time limit to our best knowledge, especially where large amounts of money are involved.
Nothing was abandoned was there, was there a mechanic or storage lien?
A bond is for surety, no guarantees.
An attorney in Chicago and Michigan set us straight, at least we took their word as officers of the courts, as the procedure needed to be done in the Illinois State and Federal Courts, where the body or whatever a person wants to call it, ORIGINATED.

One Court/Judge can not override another courts/Judges Judgment and Orders, unless, if I gathered correctly, the Judge steps down, a Superior judge issues Judgment for him to step down, or the US Supreme Court is brought in.
If so, they have ruled upon such things before, the last known owner of record>>>>>>

IS THERE AN ATTORNEY IN THE CLUB, MAYBE HE COULD VERIFY, CORRECT OR DISCARD WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY ATTORNEYS IN EXPLANATION ?

Remember, it was the Feds that shut it down and the courts liquidated all to pay back debt and investors, correct?

If thIs TOPIC AREA stalls, we could add some more of our research to jump start it again.
Tucker & Tommy, keep after it !!!!!

Sometimes, the obvious is hidden in plain sight, find the next Easter egg, notice I did not say Blue!!!!

John

[Tucker Fan 48]

Wow, Tucker you've sold me on the fenders unless someone did some major photoshopping on the pics. You're probably right on
the frame too. I must have missed where you determined the rear is from 1055. How did you figure that out? If the rear is from
1055, that would totally blow the "prototype" story that Benckmark is trying to sell because it would have never been in the
secret engineering shop being modified into the convertible "prototype" that they claim. I agree with Tommy and others that the
convertible is a good use of old parts and at least something will be built out of it. I'm still not sure that building a 4-door or a
big back window 4-door would not have been a better option. I realize that the big back window part of # 57 is probably long
gone condidering it appears that # 57 was cut up and pieces of it are now on the Benchmark car, but it could be recreated. Would
it be as it was from the factory, of course not, but at least it would be something that once was using SOME parts of the actual
vehicle rather than the fraud story that Benchmark keeps repeating about a secret "prototype" convertible.

If you've viewed the video on the Benchmark site they continue the fraud on a clip from the "Original Wheels TV" program. They
say it started life in a design studio in Chicago. Justin Cole, President of Benchmark, goes on to prove his story that the car is
a real 48 Tucker Convertible "prototype" by saying he verified the car is stamped in 3 different places # 57, under the hood in
places on the cowl and on the hood itself. He quotes a passage from the Indomatable Tin Goose where it mentions that # 57
was in the design department as somehow being proof of his "convertible" story. He mentions Reinhart showed him a letter
from a previous Tucker Corporation accountant asking that he let him know when the "convertible" is finished as the account
would like to see it. He said the account told Reinhart he had paycheck stubs proving he worked at Tucker. Cole then says as
he points to the car that it's great having someone who worked there "validate something like this". He says he also has a
copy of the Tucker Topics newsletter from 1994 where there is a discussion of #57 being a "convertible". He said they did their
homework an it has the correct motor and the correct transmission and that all the components were there.

This is the biggest bunch of b*** I've heard about this car yet. NONE of what Cole says verifies that the car he has is a "prototype"
convertible built by Tucker. First he says the car is stamped in 3 places and it is but the pictures all show a different stamping.
The first the "7" is somewhat bigger than the "5", the second the "7" is turned and not in line with the "5" and in the one on the
hood the "7" appears to be double stamped. I know that the Tucker Corporation was hardly a well oiled machine and that almost
every car was different but these stampings seem suspect. Maybe one of the oldtimers on the board can weigh in on the
stampings and how they look on other bodys. Cole mentions the passage from the Indomatable Tin Goose as being proof of the
convertible story. It really disproves it. The pictures from Life Magazine show #57 as the big window car and Alex Tremulis
stated the same thing. The letter from the Tucker accountant is even more of a joke. The account said he wanted to see the car
when it was done. How does that prove it was a secret "prototype"? The guy heard about the project Reinhart was working on
and wants to see it when it's done. So do I but that doen't make it a "prototype" that was built by Tucker. The 1994 discussion in
Tucker Topics about # 57 being a convertible doesn't validate it either. He says the car has the correct transmission. From what
I've read I'm not sure anyone can claim there is a the correct transmission for a Tucker as several were used and changed out
and up until the plant closed the transmission seemed to be an issue. They may have a transmission that could have been used
in a Tucker but stating it has the correct transmission is misleading. Cole and Benchmark must be praying that anyone with
real money and interest never reads this thread because their fraud is busted.

John maybe you can weigh in on if you saw the letter from the Tucker account that Reinhart had. Did it say anything that would
prove a convertible or just that he wanted to see the car when it was done? Were you satisfied that the pieces stamped # 57
were from # 57? I understand you have many reservations about the rest of it. Just wondering if you believe the cowl and the
hood were from #57. John I'm also curious if you would have walked away from the deal if two things were different. First if
it had been presented to you as a bunch of Tucker parts cobbled together that could be made into a Tucker convertible or
something else. Second if the price would have been more in line for a bunch of Tucker parts cobbled together that could be
made into a Tucker convertible or something else lets say around 100,000 or so. It seems like you didn't buy the "prototype"
story but you actually got to see the parts. Were you only interested if the story had been real or would you have bought the
bunch of Tucker parts cobbled together if the price had been right? Just curious.

The car is going to be an interesting piece whan it's done and certainly worth a fair amount of money. I just don't understand
why Benchmark continues with this fraudulent story about a secret "prototype" convertible that was built by Tucker and hidden
away for years that they have now brought in to the light. I'll bet they don't offer to show potential buyers the pile of rusty parts
picture that shows what the "car" looked like when Reinhart bought it. Even he says it was just a firewall and a couple doors.

[TUCKER]

You will see that there is also some things diferent on the holes of the coul of the two cars. It may also be the coul of 1027 but need to do more resurch.

[john]

First off,
TUCKER, nobody won the first prize award:
Sooooo, as runner up in figurung out what the importance of the Blue easter egg was>>

THE GOLD STAR IS YOURS !!!!!!
TALK TO TUCKERCAR ABOUT THE TRIP TO THE ARCTIC WITH BRITTANT SPEARS, HA HA>>
NEEDED TO BE A LITTLE WHIMSICAL TODAY>>>

Tucker fan 48;
The parts or conditions had nothing to do with us walking away from the car.
There were multiples of things, 20 or so, that made us walk.

It seems that it will unravel itself here, as mentioned, if it stalls, we can throw in some more easter eggs.

Don't want to be evasive, its just a very complicated story.

GOOOOD work guys, keep it going.
JOHN

[Tommy]

John, I cant argue about anything you just posted. I can only speak in generalities except when talking about my state (Minnesota) about title issues. Every state is different and it all comes down to where and how it is titled and where and if it was ever titled before.

I own a company that has many vehicles and I have bought the assets of other companies with vehicles. Myself and my family members have built many cars from scatch and a few vw kits as well. My wife works for a large company that is a household name and she heads the title department for them. They finance vehicles for individuals and companies. This is where my experience comes from. My wife tells me laws can vary greatly in each state. She has agents in every state. There are too many scenarios to debate it, I just wanted to throw out a few ideas of how it could go down.

When I wrote about the abondoned Tucker I meant the Memphis Tucker #1042. It has nothing to do with this car.

TUCKER, you are my hero. I can't believe you spotted that. It looks very convincing to me. Keep up the good work, I think you are really on to something here!!!

[TuckerCar]

TUCKER, that is pretty damning evidence. Amazing. Nice work!

Oh, the trip to the Arctic with Britney Spears... Yeah, that's been changed to a trip to Flint, MI with Liza Minelli. To claim your prize, please send your SSN, home address and bank account information to my friend in Nigeria. He'll take care of you.

[john]

TuckerCar,
You made my day.
Seems life is so dam serious all the time, we do need to step back to laugh and chuckle sometimes.

Hey, if you talk to the guy in Nigeria, ask him where the hell my 2 Million is that he was supposed to send from my long lost relatives.
Second thought, he probably spent it on Liza for the weekend getaway with Tucker in Flint Mi !!!!!
In keeping with the theme of the Arctic, Tuckers trip is in February, isn't it TuckerCar? Nothing like cocktails down by the outside pool with Liza serenading Tucker with her songs,

Back at ya buddy,
John

[TUCKER]

Shure made my day with Liza. That is a great trip you have for a good time. Well I have more fut on its way.

I believe the coul was atached to the frame after 1027 was taken apart. Can it be the same 1027 coul also? Have anyone seen the coul fron 1027? Remember the 1027 of today have the test frame and coul of 1052. So where is the one from 1027? I know it is not the coul of 1055 but only the back that was used on this convertible. I believe it have to be the coul from 1027 also since it also got lost with the frame!